State v. Fulton

2024 Ohio 2880

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Fulton, 2024-Ohio-2880.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230540 TRIAL NO. 23CRB-11949B Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N. vs. :

OCTAVIA FULTON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 31, 2024

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsely, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Chris Konitzer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah E. Nelson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Octavia Fulton was standing near her front porch

when police officers, who suspected that Fulton’s dog bit a child, approached her and

asked for her name and date of birth. She declined to share anything other than her

first name. After a bench trial, the trial court found Fulton guilty of failing to disclose

information in violation of R.C. 2921.29(A)(1). On appeal, she maintains that the

evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because it failed to prove that the

officers were investigating a crime. The state agrees and so do we.

{¶2} We hold that where police officers request a person’s personal

information solely in connection with a civil investigation, the state cannot prove that

officers reasonably suspected the person was “committing, ha[d] committed, or [wa]s

about to commit a criminal offense.” We sustain Fulton’s assignment of error, reverse

her conviction, and discharge her from further prosecution.

I. Facts and Procedure

{¶3} In July 2023, police officers responded to a report that a dog bit a child

in Fulton’s neighborhood. When Fulton stepped out of her house, the officers

approached her. After a brief conversation, the officers arrested Fulton and charged

her with failing to disclose personal information in violation of R.C. 2921.29(A)(1).

{¶4} At her bench trial, the arresting officer described his interaction with

Fulton as “contentious.” He testified that Fulton “did not want to cooperate or give any

information pertaining to the investigation of the dog.” He asked her for her name and

date of birth. While she gave her first name, she told officers that she wanted to see a

photograph of the child’s injury before providing additional information.

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶5} When asked if he was investigating Fulton as a suspect in a potential

crime, the officer answered, “No.” He explained that he spoke to Fulton as part of the

investigation “[f]or the report and then also there is a civil citation that needs to be

issued.” And eventually, she received “a civil citation.”

{¶6} The trial court found Fulton guilty of failing to disclose her personal

information and sentenced her to four days in jail. She appeals her conviction.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶7} In a single assignment of error, Fulton maintains that the evidence was

insufficient to convict her for failing to disclose her personal information because the

officers were conducting a civil investigation when she withheld her information.1 The

state concedes this error.

{¶8} Fulton argues that insufficient evidence supported her conviction, so we

view the evidence in favor of the state to determine whether a rational fact finder could

have found that the state proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable

doubt. See State v. Smith, 2021-Ohio-291, 167 N.E.3d 587, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.).

{¶9} R.C. 2921.29(A)(1) prohibits a person in a public place from withholding

her name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who

reasonably suspects that she “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a

criminal offense.” We have explained that R.C. 2921.29(A)(1) “applies to questioning

in the context of an investigative detention, or ‘Terry stop,’ and not to questions posed

during a consensual encounter.” State v. Crump, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-190636

1 Fulton also argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction because she was on

private property when the officers questioned her, and the statute prohibits withholding information in a public place. Because we hold that the state failed to prove that officers reasonably suspected Fulton of committing a criminal offense, we decline to address that argument. 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

and C-190637, 2021-Ohio-2574, ¶ 17, citing State v. Starcher, 7th Dist. Jefferson No.

14JE17, 2014-Ohio-5223, ¶ 19-21.

{¶10} Fulton argues, and the state agrees, that the state offered no evidence

that officers reasonably suspected Fulton of committing a criminal offense. The officer

testified at trial that he was investigating a dog bite and was not questioning Fulton as

a criminal suspect. She received a civil citation for the dog bite. Under Cincinnati

Municipal Code 701-2(A)(1) and (B)(3), a dog-bite injury caused by the owner’s failure

to keep her dog physically confined or restrained “constitute[s] a Class C Civil

Offense.” That failure can rise to a misdemeanor offense if the dog was ever designated

as a nuisance or dangerous dog. See Cincinnati Municipal Code 701-1-D-1 (“Dangerous

Dog”) and 701-1-N-1 (“Nuisance Dog”); R.C. 955.11(A)(1)(a) (“Dangerous Dog”) and

955.11(A)(3)(a) (“Nuisance Dog”). There is nothing in the record to suggest that

Fulton’s dog was ever labeled a nuisance or dangerous dog.

{¶11} Because the evidence shows that Fulton withheld her information from

officers who were investigating a civil matter, the state presented insufficient evidence

to convict Fulton of failing to disclose her information in violation of R.C.

2921.29(A)(1).

III. Conclusion

{¶12} We sustain Fulton’s assignment of error, reverse her conviction, and

discharge her from further prosecution.

Judgment reversed and appellant discharged.

BERGERON and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.